Posted
by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @09:01PM
from the make-going-to-the-theater-worth-remortgaging-the-house dept.

jmozena writes "Marvel has raised $525 million to independently finance 10 movies based on its comics over seven years. The titles named are Captain America, The Avengers, Nick Fury, Black Panther, Ant-Man, Cloak & Dagger, Dr. Strange, Hawkeye, Power Pack and Shang-Chi. The company's also changing its name from Marvel Enterprises to Marvel Entertainment."

Still, shouldn't have problem getting $20m. There are people who watch everything-comic, or just couldn't buy seats for their intended movies.

If that $525M gets split evenly into 10 movies, that means $52.5M goes to Ant Man's production. A $20M take means a $32.5M loss for a movie that probably shouldn't have been made. I'm thinking this will be an Electra but won't have the pull of Jennifer Garner, which, for many, was the only reason to see it.

I understand your reasoning though, but I don't think it should be treated as a batch-gamble, where they seem to throw piles of money, small ideas and big names at a vat-o-projects and hope a few get a blockbuster.

Antz and Bug's Live didn't try forcing an unknown comic book hero to the screen. Spider-Man is incredibly well-known and actually was made into a couple decent movies. I just don't see Ant-Man as being very marketable.

I'll be there opening night for the Tick! That was a great show. I only got the chance to see one of the live action shows and I thought it was good stuff. I think the biggest problem with the show was the time slot. It was doomed from the beggining.

Based on SlashStatistics (a general look through the comments), these movies will fail, miserabily.

The novelty of a comic book movie or a video game movie wears off very quickly, and are often greatly critisized by the true fans of the comic/video game. Yet they keep making these movies because they don't need to put a lot of thought into them; their designers already put their hearts into it and spent their life drawing these characters out in the comic books.

I will admit, there is an occasional breakout hit: The Matrix, Sin City were amazing, Spiderman was not as bad as it could have been. But it hardly makes up for the disasters they wage in the process (Daredevil, Elektra, The Incredible Hulk, come on).

It really is evident in the hollywood scheme of things that they have ran out of movie ideas because the corporation is stifling the idealists. People are too busy crunching the numbers on the films instead of spending the money, making it, and learning something from it. Some say Hollywood has matured in this way, but just look at the box offices: Hollywood hasn't matured at all. They're just remaking the same movies over and over, with different names for the characters, different actors, and in different cities.

They're just remaking the same movies over and over, with different names for the characters, different actors, and in different cities.

Worse in some cases. Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail were basically the same movie but they forgot to replace the same actors! One comment I've heard was "It wasn't as if the Empire State Building collapsed that they needed to make a new one!"

Worse in some cases. Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail were basically the same movie but they forgot to replace the same actors! One comment I've heard was "It wasn't as if the Empire State Building collapsed that they needed to make a new one!"

Could be worse. A mild mannered Microsoft employee working 100hr weeks gets fed up with all the software piracy. His only resolve is to put on an Ant constume to fight commercial piracy and spams moral messages to all the kids in....

Others would argue:Capitalism = Individuals acting in their own self-interest serve the needs of the community at large in the most effecient manner, and the greatest contributors to society reap the greatest rewards.Socialism = Corrupt individuals use the police power of the state to take goods from the hard-working to bribe those who keep them in powerYou're not wrong...the truth lies in-between the extremes you and I have each presented. However, my point was that movies condemning capitalism and far ou

Just for novelty's sake I'd love to see a movie or a comic about the triumph of free-market capitalism and individual liberty over group identity and power-hungry socialists.
So would I, but as long as Hollywood is controlled by liberals it's not going to happen.

WTF? Hollywood is controlled by giant corporations. What flaky actors do in their spare time has no impact on what movies get made. Any films about the "triumph of ___ism", whatever the ___ism, is going to be a preachy bore. But if it turns you o

I will admit, there is an occasional breakout hit: The Matrix, Sin City were amazing, Spiderman was not as bad as it could have been. But it hardly makes up for the disasters they wage in the process (Daredevil, Elektra, The Incredible Hulk, come on).

Superhero movies are a pretty safe bet because they do make their money back, eventually. Even the "failures" you mentioned (Daredevil actually did quite well, BTW) make the cash back in foreign markets and on DVD. And the ones that do well do spectacularly well-- as in, people will see it in the theater, buy the DVD and still watch it on cable.

And yes the die-hard fans will complain about liberties being taken... But the die-hards are never happy. The superhero genre relies more on the casual fan, those who used to read the books when they were kids, or those who just like superhero movies... And there are a lot more of these people than the die-hards.

Yet they keep making these movies because they don't need to put a lot of thought into them; their designers already put their hearts into it and spent their life drawing these characters out in the comic books.

Well, maybe in Sin City's case, or Ghost World, or V is For Vendetta... But come on, there's no heart and soul in Marvel's assembly line. A Marvel comic might have a talented artist or writer pass through every now and again, but that's all they're doing-- passing through. Most of the time it's done by hacks for hire. I don't consider The Fantastic Four to be too sacred for a B-movie adaption.

It really is evident in the hollywood scheme of things that they have ran out of movie ideas because the corporation is stifling the idealists.

You think this is something new? There have always been shitty movies. And shitty movie sequels. Superhero movies certainly aren't a new trend, and cheesy sci-fi serials have been made since the thirties. Movies have always been made for the lowest common demoninator, with a few bold talents managing to squeak through (and the same goes for comic books, doubly so.) We tend to forget the crap, so it's easy to say Hollywood is going to hell... But the good-to-crap ratio has been pretty steady for eighty-plus years.

BTW there are a lot of good movies being made right now, you just have to know where to look. With the advent of cheap DV editing suites, for example, documentaries have never been better.

And yes the die-hard fans will complain about liberties being taken... But the die-hards are never happy. The superhero genre relies more on the casual fan, those who used to read the books when they were kids, or those who just like superhero movies... And there are a lot more of these people than the die-hards.

The die-hard fans who are complaining have already seen the movie and given their 10 bucks. I'm not dissing the casual market, but I'm guessing all of the Daredevil fans out there that considered t

the things is, unlike daredevil and elektra which were passed off to secondrate scripters and directors, the Hulk was a brilliant and underappreciated film. of all the comic book movies, it is the one that most closely captured the graphical elements of comic book design since will eisner and walt simonson. the way ang lee manipulated the multiple layers of imagery and time was really brilliant.

one thing that really makes the hulk a great adaptation of a comic book though is that the writers and director were smart enough to cut rick jones. if there was *ever!* a comic book character that needed to burn in hell, it was rick jones. who managed to be the dippy sidekick to not only the hulk, but captain america and captain marvel too (and the whole bloody avengers team!) oy what a waste of ink!

I am not a great fan of the Hulk comic book, I was aways in the x-men corner, and while I think the x-men moves are well made and a lot of fun, (more joss whedon dialogue please) and the spider-man movies are very good, the hulk is, I think, a much better piece of art. (of course I prefer batman begins to any of the other batman movies to date too, despite the plot holes.)

the things that always made the great comics characters, was the real depth of character, and what really made the comics books great, was creators who really believed in and felt for those characters.

see what kind of rant 3 glasses of wine can start? kids, don't drink and post!

I was in line to see something else overhearing the conversation of two teen girls in line. The Hulk was playing at the theater.

White Teen Girl: What about "The Hulk"?Asian Teen Girl: I heard that the movie had a lot of jumping in it.White Teen Girl: Jumping?Asian Teen Girl: Yeah, like the hulk jumps a lot.White Teen Girl: OK.Asian Teen Girl: I don't like movies with jumping.

The problem is that they've already done the good and popular comic books. I've only heard of Captain America out of those, and I doubt that that's even going to make it to the cinemas here in Australia. (Sorry mates but America's reputation quite right at the moment to have a superhero named after it)

Just because they weren't the most popular characters ever doesn't mean they wouldn't make good movies... I mean, look at it from the opposite direction. The Daredevil and Hulk movies sucked... So did Catwoman for that matter. Punisher wasn't that great either... Hm...

It does mean that it'll be hard to make money, though. I think they've really mistimed this - Hollywood's all about streaks of nearly identical movies, and outside of franchises like Batman and Spiderman, I think the string has played out. My personal guess, but it looks like the public is cooling on these movies combined with less recognizable titles. Hell, I've only heard of two of them and have no interest in seeing those two.

Those movies you listed may have used characters that are well known, but the characters themselves are some of the weakest.

DareDevil's biggest claim to fame in the Frank Miller run. They've been doing nothing but trying to recapture that ever since. Kevin Smith's run was "eh" at best.

Hulk has been a long time icon of The Avengers, but the essence of the character has been so dilluted by now that no one is really sure who the Hulk is. That's not to say making an interesting comic about a green brute who can't talk and has a prediliction toward purple pants is easy.

Punisher is Punisher. Death Wish with a skull on his chest.

The problem is these characters don't really have much character to them to begin with. They are constantly being reimagined and reinvented in the comic books.

When someone says X-Men or Superman, you immediately have this basic feeling of what they are talking about. Almost an essence, which is all you need to capture to make a good movie. The studios are looking to make some fast scratch, but like any movie, making a *good* comic book movie that will bring in the casual audience and the fans requires just as much attention to the character as the special effects. It isn't enough to have them smashing shit up and talking like idiots, people will get sick of that. But if you inject the essence of the character, that part of them that people instantly recognize throughout your 1.5-2 hours, that's when you have a successful movie.

This has happened before. Right after the initial success of Batman [imdb.com]the movie studios thought that super-hero movies were the way to go. The resulting movies were not made well.They made Captain America once before [imdb.com]. As much as I loved the X-Men and Spiderman movies, Fantastic Four was only so-so,and bringing back Captain America, they should be careful. Hollywood tends to beat genres to death, wait a while and do itall over again.

Well, hollywood uses an interesting model. They pay the bills and produce movies with borrowed money. This includes paying exorbitant salaries of the talent as well as the execs. so there's financial incentive to produce big budget movies... especially for producers, who typically get a percentage of the production budget plus gross participation.

For example: Miramax last year got an operating budget of $700 million from parent Disney. This pays for Harvey and Bob's salaries and expensive lifestyles, and a lot of the decadence that has evolved from the indie scene. Out of that cash, they make a few films, and acquire a few others. If a profit ensues... good shit. If not, there's always next year. Except, they had like three red years in a row, and Disney axed Bob and Harvey. So Bob and HArvey promptly went to investors and asked for a billion dollars to start the Weinstein Company. Because they got fucked on their exit deal with Miramax - they left with nothing - no library to speak of (anybody in film knows that its a LIBRARY that makes you money - assets that appreciate over time - especially for oscar films, of which miramax had a few) They were laughed out of the room. Now they're begging for 300 million at smaller banks and still getting snickers.

As far as a producer and film company is concerned - you assume your film will take a loss. the producer and film company makes its revenue in the short term from its advances from parent companies and investors all looking for a spider man or titanic. It's a tenuous system built up in part because the high barriers of entry prevent serious competition.

How do you figure you have enough information to make a judgement one way or the other on how these movies will be. If you know who these characters are then all you know is a nugget of the premise. You don't know when in the characters story the movie will take place. You don't know the structure, the pacing or even the director. There are so many things that can make or break a movie that just knowing the pitch isn't anything more than statistical noise.

i think there is some sort of psychological sweet spot that superheroes touch in our heads and hearts

it's a meme that monotheism just can't kill

sort of ideal representations of who we think we should be or who we wish we were, and the relationships we have with other elements of society, and the struggle with evil... a social and psychological context that some nameless faceless uberentity that is a monotheistic god just can't satisfy in us

The irony to the entire thing is that the monotheastic religions of today are a result of the same process as that of the comic book super heroes. What I find fascinating about comic book characters is they are one of the last bastions of mythic creativity occuring within modern culture. Mythic creativity has been a meme within human cultures for a very long time and unfortantely the mainstream monothesastic religions no longer allow for any mythic creativity thus it spilled over in to comic books.If anyo

Obsession with heroes is if anything a tacit admission of our own surrender. Only someone else can be that good, noble, and selfless. And how wrong that idea is. Heroes aren't fictional people. They're the people who don't abdicate the power and responsibility both that are free will, make the choice to be better, and follow through even if it means giving up everything they've most desired and cherished in their whole lives.

You sound like you have some snake oil to sell. A hero is someone who happens to be

Actually, of all the movies listed, Dr. Strange is the only one that has the possibility of being a CG boom. I always read Dr. Strange. His story is the deepest of most of the comic heroes Marvel ever produced.

The most obvious answer to those who haven't read comic books is the one that hasn't been mentioned here yet. Something that rarely occurs to us because we so like the character and plot that we've overlooked what's been staring us in the face:

The Silver SURFER? A guy who flies around on his intergalactic surfboard? How amazingly lame is that? Forget Galactus, the Fantastic Four, any other cool things that were involved. We're talking about a pacifist surfer dude here. Wha

They also did Spiderman and FF movies that by all accounts were horrible before the "big" releases. It's not like anyone is not going to go see a summer blockbuster movie because that one time some independant film company in the 70's lucked into a license and the movie sucked.

The Avengers
A facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group.

Captain America, Thor, Ironman, Hawkeye, Giant Man, The Wasp...Hell if they go really old school Hulk will make an appearance. Yes the Avengers don't have the kind of name recognition the X-Men, FF, or Justice League has, but that's what pre-movie hype is for.

Nick Fury
I guess because the Punisher movie worked so well...

If they go for a Marvel Ultimates Universe style with this movie (which is pretty much what they did with FF), Nick Fury is a black, eye-patch-wearing James Bond ass-kicking character with a suit that allows him to fly and turn invisible. I guarentee you Sam Jackson's publicist is already pimping him for this role.

Black Panther
Ah, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Are you posting this from the 1950's? Did someone invent timetravel:// and not tell me? Please, that argument isn't even worth responding to.

Ant-Man
Honey, I shrunk the superhero!

Yeah, and? Those movies did pretty well if I recall; there is a huge movie market aimed at kids these days. I'll admit Ant-Man as serious comic-book movie doesn't sound too appealing, but Marvel has and obviously would love to continue to hit the 8-14 demographic or whatever, perhaps this is part of that?

Cloak & Dagger
Not that Cloak was a completely contrived character, or that Dagger wore far too little clothing, but how could this movie possibly be interesting?

Hmmm...dark, brooding character who is in constant pain, running around fighting crime with an ultra-hottie. Nope, can't think of any demographic that would appeal to!

Again, this probably isn't the type of movie that you take that seriously, but there is obviously a male teenage demographic to hit with this flick.

Dr. Strange
Who?

Think of Gandalf battling the Balrog in Fellowship, except the Balrog is Dormammu, Lord of all Hell, and Gandalf is Dr. Strange, who can fly around and cast all kinds of CGI-friendly magic spells. And then take it times 10. Strange is all about magic in the MU, and this perhaps has the chance to be the best of the titles if done properly.

Hawkeye
Ah, Daredevil without charisma, but empowered with a ridiculous costume.

Again, if they go the Ultimate Universe route, Hawkey basically looks like Brad Pitt; a super soldier who can use a bow like guys in John Woo movies use pistols. Hardcore action flick potential.

Power Pack
Never heard of them.

Probably another kiddie flick, they were basically a bunch of kid superheros back in the 80's. Honestly this does seem like a strange choice to me, I would guess Marvel is seeing a Spy Kids type thing.

Shang-Chi
Is this like the token Asian guy?

Yeah, because martial arts pictures aren't popular or anything.

Look, I know most of these movies will probably turn out to be on the level of Elektra or Punisher, but the point is that there is material to work with here. These characters/teams are not as well known to the general public as a Spiderman, Hulk, X-Men or FF, but they do have interesting characters and stories to tell.

Marvel has what the call the Ultimate Universe, which is essentially relaunches of their flagship titles in a universe totally seperate from the traditional Marvel "616" universe that has been in existance for the past 30-odd years. The Ultimate Universe takes place as if these characters are being born/created/mutated in modern times, without the 30 years of backstory.

The stories are essentially the same, Spiderman still loses his Uncle Ben and learns the whole "Great Power/Responsibility" thing, the Fa

The AvengersA facless hero clan. I can't even name a single hero in this group.

Do you mean the West Coast Avengers? Or the East Coast Avengers? Or the Great Lakes Avengers?

Now, I'm not surprised that you can't name any of the Avengers, because there have been so many (and even I don't know who's in the teams now). But seriously, their lineup has included:

Captain AmericaThorThe HulkThe Sub-MarinerIron Man

And let's not forget Ant-Man, Hawkeye, and the entire Fantastic Four!

Nick FuryI guess because the Punisher movie worked so well...

Come on, in this day and age, you think a movie about a super-tough anti-terrorist government agent with tons of nifty guns and gadgets (and a floating fortress) isn't going to play?

Black PantherAh, a hero named after a hyper-racist group. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Hey, he was a big deal back in the day, leader of his own country as well as a powerful hero.

Ant-ManHoney, I shrunk the superhero!

Okay, I've gotta go with you on that one. I see little potential to that movie.

Cloak & DaggerNot that Cloak was a completely contrived character, or that Dagger wore far too little clothing, but how could this movie possibly be interesting?

A bit more modern spin - she the naive and innocent girl from the good side of the tracks, and he the rough and tough gangsta from the mean streets. Mix in some exotic street drugs, some righteous vengeance, and you've got a winner.

If you haven't seen David Hasselhoff as Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. [imdb.com] you haven't lived. This turkey leaves "Plan 9 From Outer Space" in the dust as the "worst film ever made". Next time SciFi Channel runs it, make a point of it. You'll have more fun having a do-it-yourself MST3000 than words can describe.

Yea I've managed to avoid that so far. My first hint that it was crap was having David Hasslehoff anywhere near the film.

Thankfully, Marvel is dealing with production personell who have actually made hit movies in the past now, rather than doing direct to DVD crap. Still, I can't figure out how they think Power Pack or Shang-Chi are going to be hits... Iron Fist maybe...

I never really "got" Captain America, I mean I know people can be patriotic and all but a superhero like him seems so lame to me.

Well, I can completely understand from your perspective. Who would really be interested in Captain France? A guy that dresses up like a croissant, runs away from German bad guys and blames all his problems on Captain America. Would make for a short, annoying movie...

Cap is less a superhero than a super hero, if you'll pardon the wordplay. His strongest "power" is leadership. His only weapon is a defensive one. He acquired his combat skills fighting in a land war that makes Iraq look like a couple of kids on a playground. His work ethic is unmatched.

Captain America symbolizes what any one of us could become, if we persevere.

I was looking at my 42-year-old body the other day, and recalled a Captain America snippet from a 1970's Avengers comic. It showed Cap working out, tirelessly preparing himself for whatever lay ahead. That thought motivates me to work on self-improvement, since you never know what's coming at you next.

All the replies to this post rightly point out that Captain America was a childish piece of WWII propaganda. When the war ended, so did his popularity.In the 60's Marvel brought the character back, and the most popular theme in his storylines is his rejection of being used as a tool for the government. He's supposed to stand for all of the American Dreams of the people- and not a piece of propaganda for the politicians.

Check out the wiki for Captain America [wikipedia.org], they explain it way better than I can.

Ok, so Marvel have secured a deal for these titles, but what happens when there are no more of their series left to take to the big screen? Is it then a case of moving the porfolio onto the next media format and repeating? Surely this money would be better spent on funding original and creative films that could bring something more exciting to our screens than a remake of a comic book story. I mean, its nice being able to see the comics on the big screen, but at the expense of original works?

I see lots of film flops coming our way in the next seven years. These are not the A-list characters from Marvel's holdings -- the more interesting characters have been licensed by Hollywood already. I've noticed a huge void on TV however, there are no ongoing Super-Hero shows I'm aware of. Marvel should start small and syndicate two or three shows that feature lots of the B-list heroes. Then take the characters that capture public imagination to the big screen or give them their own ongoing show.

Gotta love the B-list heroes -- it allows for more creative license in plot and character development. Marvel doesn't have as large of a fan base for these characters -- less people to get PO'd when they change the backstory.

That's the plus side -- maybe we'll get one or two excellent screenplays in there that will be produced and directed well.

OTOH, we've got an average budget of 52.5 million for each film. Assuming that a couple of these guys get the lion's share, that leaves us with...

B-movies!!! B-movies that don't have some silly giant snake in the jungle, or intelligent sharks (hopefully), that are marketed to your average (sub)urban potsmoker.

I, for one, welcome the return of our nerd-targeted B-Movie overlords... speaking of which, I have a plot to pitch to Marvel Entertainment...

On a more serious note, what most of the comics have in common is a clear dichotomy between right (the hero) and wrong (often protrayed as a group). Complex heroes? Unnecessary. Maybe Marvel wants to try to tap into today's youth, who are much more exposed to the boogeyman ideal of the bad guy. Or maybe I'm tired and need to go to bed, not sure.

Seriously, what ever happened to the Ed Wood/Roger Corman school of directing? The last really really great, lovingly trashy film I saw was Paul Verhoeven's "Starship Troopers", and that was far too long ago.

On a more serious note, what most of the comics have in common is a clear dichotomy between right (the hero) and wrong (often protrayed as a group). Complex heroes? Unnecessary. Maybe Marvel wants to try to tap into today's youth, who are much more exposed to the boogeyman ideal of the bad guy. Or maybe I'm tired and need to go to bed, not sure.

How complex can you get in an hour forty-five, and still leave time for the action scenes the mass market demands? No good attempt goes unpunished by the slashdot i

It could be I'm from a different continent or something, but I haven't heard of a single one of those characters.

It lately feels like the movie industry has collectively jumped the shark. I used to go to the movies five or six times in a normal year, and I must have seen twenty b-movies or more every year on video with friends. But the past few years there's been nothing. When the only movie I've looked forward to in the past three years is the next Harry Potter, things are not looking good.

Scott Lang was an expert in electronics but for some reason couldn't make a buck. So he became a burglar but wasn't very good at it... he got caught and put in jail and got a job with some Marvel invented company that one would know if one ever bothered to read comic books. But he daughter was diagnosed with a terminal illness, probally something to do with all those green screen terminals Scott Lang was forced to used as he coudln't afford a real computer. The only doctor who can help was being helded by some other big evil company the name likely known by anyone who has bothered to read any marvel comics. So he decided to steal AntMan's outfit and magic shrinking gas. Fortunatly the real AntMan had a spair YellowJacket outfit and follows AntMan II and watches him confront the arch villin who's in the business of kidnaping doctors needed by wackos who like to dress up in costume, a common theme in the Marvel world. AntMan II rescues the good doctor who cures his daughter and just when he's about to step up and return the stupid AntMan outfit to AntMan... AntMan says he can keep it so long as he's a good boy.

Sells electronics by day, dresses up as an Ant by night... it's AntMan II!

So, from this I can establish the first AntMan was some guy with magic shrinking gas who liked to put on an ant costume get small and fight crime. And I wondered why I never really bought comic books.

Ever since McCarthyism, they've been focused on ridiculous Superhero/Men In Tights nonsense while the rest of the world has moved on to much more interesting subject matter.

On top of that, while Japanese Manga have been giving people 150 - 200 pages of black and white comics on cheap paper for ten bucks, DC and Marvel think they can make their comics into "collectibles" and sell 15 readable pages (if you take out the ads) for over four bucks.

DC and Marvel just don't get it. They think they're competing with each other, but REALLY, they're competing with Japanese and European companies. And somebody's gonna eat their lunch. Like Masamune Shirow, Mamaru Ooshi, Enki Bilal, Giraud, or Frezzato. People who write INTERESTING, ADULT-LEVEL STORIES that don't involve thinly-disguised magical thinking and wish-fulfillment.

The American comics industry currently appeals only to little kids and adults who obsess over the current value of (I don't know) Batman #6. The collectibles market is SMALL. The entertainment market, on the other hand, is HUGE.

Just look at how much bigger Border's manga section is than their superhero section. That'll open your eyes...

You do realize that the American comic industry is larger than just Marvel and DC, right? Certainly they are the lion's share, but there are a ton of independents doing all sorts of interesting things. And frankly, you can find some pretty interesting and different things even from DC and Marvel, or imprints like Vertigo and Wildstorm.

Most of the selected titles can be considered 3rd-tier heroes. Only the Captain America and Doctor Strange movies have a chance of making a good box-office run.
While taking relatively unknown heroes does not have the big risk of alienating hard-core fans, I seriously doubt whether Nick Fury or Ant-man can even make a ripple on the casual moviegoers' minds.

...and I pretty much agree that the slate sucks the way it's laid out. But consider this: Marvel has never before made their own films and had controlling interest in them. They've never had creative control to hire/fire screenwriters or directors, and they've only ever gotten a cut of the profits of the movies they make.

This deal is important because it brings a new angle to the way movies get made in Hollywood - we created a mini studio out of a defunct has-been of a comic company, and we're going to do it again. All I'm saying is that you can bash the films all you want, but this is a good precedent because it's putting creative control for the first time in the hands of the creators. I know that in this case, there's no one left who helped create Captain America, but from a company standpoint, we're at the source. Who do you think is working on a deal with Image? Those cats aren't so old - there's a very real chance that they'll get to executive produce (at the very least) their own movies like no comic book geek has ever done before.

Lastly, remember that the slate can (and will) change. I'm hoping that '300' can invigorate the hobbled historical epic genre because the script is good and the concept excellent. Sorry I'm late to the party.

I particularly agree with rule #1: Find the right director. When I heard Sam Raimi was doing Spider-Man, I knew he was the right guy for the job. He should also get the Dr. Strange film if he's not too busy with S-M#3. However, Raimi would not be right for, say, Captain America. I would give that project to Wes Craven since it seems he's stretching out into action/suspense territory.

"Which goes to show you that Marvel really hasn't come up with much exciting stuff in the last couple decades."

On the flip side, it means that Marvel has franchises that have withstood the test of time. Frankly, I don't think highly of super-hero movies, but if they have a devoted fan base then give them what they want.

Exec A:"I'm thinking "The Sandman" from those cool comics, only in the movie he's not some skinny guy, but a musclebound hero!"

Exec B:"I'm listening..."

Exec A:"He's got the power of making people sleep, or hallucinate during the day. He fights crime and recharges his magic bag of sleeping dust every night. And his arch-enemy is his own sister, Desire!"

Exec B:"Good twist. What about the love interest?"

Exec A:"Well, his girlfriend is a rock-grrl from New York, street-hip and so marketable. We've got sketches of a clothing line"

Exec B:"I like it. We need to drop some of that touchy-feely crap from the stories. I want action, and long fight sequences. Is that Woo guy available? I'm thinking of a huge fight scene, where the Sandman fights that sister, starting with fists and then getting swords from a wall or something. It'll end with him cutting off her head just when she's about to skewer him. We'll need some special effects though. Do these guys fly?"

Exec A:"They do now!"

Exec B:"Shit we're going to make so much money from this. Maybe there's a sequel, and she's not dead but comes back for revenge. It doesn't matter though."